所见、所感与所知：用户的注意力、主观感受和在线健康信息质量评价关系探究

doi:10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2022.02.007

情报学报

2022, Vol. 41

Issue (2): 176-187 DOI: 10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2022.02.007

情报用户与行为研究

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

所见、所感与所知：用户的注意力、主观感受和在线健康信息质量评价关系探究

秦琴¹, 柯青¹, 谢雨杉¹, 汪传雷²

1.南京大学信息管理学院，南京 210023
2.安徽大学商学院，合肥 230601

Seeing, Thinking, and Knowing: Research on the Relationship between Users' Attention, Subjective Feelings, and Quality Evaluation of Online Health Information

Qin Qin¹, Ke Qing¹, Xie Yushan¹, Wang Chuanlei²

1.School of Information Management, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023
2.School of Business, Anhui University, Hefei 230601

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (11)

全文: PDF (1209 KB) HTML (148 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要健康网站是用户获取健康信息的重要来源，在线健康信息的质量关系到患者、医生、网站运营商等所有相关者的利益。网站页面元素是在线健康信息的载体，用户对信息质量的评价依赖于对页面元素的感知。本研究基于在线健康信息质量评价原则划分页面元素，采集和分析相关页面元素上的注意力分配；利用调查问卷收集质量评价数据，分析质量评价与页面元素注意力分配的相关性；通过凝视提示回顾式发声思考和半结构化访谈获取用户的主观感受，以解释质量评价与页面元素注意力分配之间的关系。研究结果发现，相比于其他页面元素，用户在医生认证资质和广告上的注意力分配较多；用户对健康信息权威性、保密性、公开性和广告政策的评价分别与相应页面元素的注视次数和注视时间正相关，对补充性和归因性的评价分别与相应页面元素的注视次数和注视时间负相关，而对合理性和透明性的评价与相应页面元素的注视次数和注视时间不相关；最后，从用户主观感受的角度揭示了注意力分配和质量评价产生关系的内在原因。本研究丰富了在线健康信息质量评价理论基础和研究方法，研究结论为改善在线健康信息内容质量和健康网站界面设计提供了参考。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	秦琴
	柯青
	谢雨杉
	汪传雷

关键词 ：在线健康信息, 质量评价, 页面元素, 注意力, 主观感受

收稿日期: 2020-11-17

基金资助:国家社会科学基金一般项目“焦虑情绪下在线健康社区用户信息精细加工和健康行为研究”（20BTQ076）。

作者简介: 秦琴，女，1996年生，博士研究生，主要研究领域为用户信息行为、健康信息；柯青，女，1979年生，教授，博士生导师，主要研究领域为网络信息资源管理、信息检索、人机交互与用户行为，E-mail：keqing@nju.edu.cn；谢雨杉，女，1996年生，博士研究生，主要研究领域为用户信息行为；汪传雷，男，1970年生，教授，硕士生导师，主要研究领域为信息化与信息资源管；

引用本文:

秦琴, 柯青, 谢雨杉, 汪传雷. 所见、所感与所知：用户的注意力、主观感受和在线健康信息质量评价关系探究[J]. 情报学报, 2022, 41(2): 176-187.
Qin Qin, Ke Qing, Xie Yushan, Wang Chuanlei. Seeing, Thinking, and Knowing: Research on the Relationship between Users' Attention, Subjective Feelings, and Quality Evaluation of Online Health Information. 情报学报, 2022, 41(2): 176-187.

链接本文:

https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2022.02.007 或 https://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/Y2022/V41/I2/176

1 Moreno J M, Morales del Castillo J M, Porcel C, et al. A quality evaluation methodology for health-related websites based on a 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic approach[J]. Soft Computing, 2010, 14(8): 887-897.
2 李月琳, 张秀, 王姗姗. 社交媒体健康信息质量研究: 基于真伪健康信息特征的分析[J]. 情报学报, 2018, 37(3): 294-304.
3 钱明辉, 徐志轩, 王珊. 基于用户参与的在线健康平台信息服务质量研究[J]. 情报学报, 2019, 38(2): 132-142.
4 Zhang Y, Sun Y L, Xie B. Quality of health information for consumers on the web: a systematic review of indicators, criteria, tools, and evaluation results[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 66(10): 2071-2084.
5 魏子晗, 李兴珊. 决策过程的追踪: 基于眼动的证据[J]. 心理科学进展, 2015, 23(12): 2029-2041.
6 Elling S, Lentz L, de Jong M. Retrospective think-aloud method: using eye movements as an extra cue for participants’ verbalizations[C]// Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, 2011: 1161-1170.
7 Silberg W M, Lundberg G D, Musacchio R A. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: caveant lector et viewor—Let the reader and viewer beware[J]. JAMA, 1997, 277(15): 1244-1245.
8 Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, et al. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web[J]. JAMA, 2002, 287(20): 2691-2700.
9 Fahy E, Hardikar R, Fox A, et al. Quality of patient health information on the Internet: reviewing a complex and evolving landscape[J]. The Australasian Medical Journal, 2014, 7(1): 24-28.
10 邓胜利, 赵海平. 国外网络健康信息质量评价: 指标、工具及结果研究综述[J]. 情报资料工作, 2017(1): 67-74.
11 Buhi E R, Daley E M, Oberne A, et al. Quality and accuracy of sexual health information web sites visited by young people[J]. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2010, 47(2): 206-208.
12 Foster A, Florea V, Fahrenbruch C, et al. Availability and accuracy of EMS information about chronic health and medications in cardiac arrest[J]. The Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2017, 18(5): 864-869.
13 Dutta-Bergman M J. The impact of completeness and web use motivation on the credibility of e-health information[J]. Journal of Communication, 2006, 54(2): 253-269.
14 Alwhaibi M, Balkhi B, Alshammari T M, et al. Measuring the quality and completeness of medication-related information derived from hospital electronic health records database[J]. Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal, 2019, 27(4): 502-506.
15 Williams J G. Measuring the completeness and currency of codified clinical information[J]. Methods of Information in Medicine, 2003, 42(4): 482-488.
16 宋士杰, 赵宇翔, 宋小康, 等. 信息源对数字原住民健康信息可信度判断的启发式实验研究[J]. 情报学报, 2020, 39(4): 399-408.
17 Ma T, Atkin D. User generated content and credibility evaluation of online health information: a meta analytic study[J]. Telematics and Informatics, 2017, 34(5): 472-486.
18 Chi E, Jabbour N, Aaronson N L. Quality and readability of websites for patient information on tonsillectomy and sleep apnea[J]. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 2017, 98: 1-3.
19 Lam C G, Roter D L, Cohen K J. Survey of quality, readability, and social reach of websites on osteosarcoma in adolescents[J]. Patient Education and Counseling, 2013, 90(1): 82-87.
20 Rezniczek G A, Küppers L, Heuer H, et al. Quality of websites of obstetrics and gynecology departments: a cross-sectional study[J]. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2015, 15: 103.
21 Weymann N, H?rter M, Dirmaier J. Quality of online information on type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study[J]. Health Promotion International, 2014, 30(4): 821-831.
22 董伟. 医学健康网站信息可用性影响因素探析[J]. 情报资料工作, 2015(3): 37-41.
23 Klila H, Chatton A, Zermatten A, et al. Quality of Web-based information on obsessive compulsive disorder[J]. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 2013, 9: 1717-1723.
24 Azer S A, Alghofaili M M, Alsultan R M, et al. Accuracy and readability of websites on kidney and bladder cancers[J]. Journal of Cancer Education, 2018, 33(4): 926-944.
25 San Giorgi M R M, de Groot O S D, Dikkers F G. Quality and readability assessment of websites related to recurrent respiratory papillomatosis[J]. The Laryngoscope, 2017, 127(10): 2293-2297.
26 Ahmed O H, Sullivan S J, Schneiders A G, et al. Concussion information online: evaluation of information quality, content and readability of concussion-related websites[J]. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2012, 46(9): 675-683.
27 Patton L L, George S F, Hollowell R P. Content, quality, and readability of website information on dental care for patients with cancer[J]. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology, 2014, 118(1): 78-83.
28 Schreuders E H, Grobbee E J, Kuipers E J, et al. Variable quality and readability of patient-oriented websites on colorectal cancer screening[J]. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2017, 15(1): 79-85.
29 Bizzi I, Ghezzi P, Paudyal P. Health information quality of websites on periodontology[J]. Journal of Clinical Periodontology, 2017, 44(3): 308-314.
30 Hansberry D R, Patel S R, Agarwal P, et al. A quantitative readability analysis of patient education resources from gastroenterology society websites[J]. International Journal of Colorectal Disease, 2017, 32(6): 917-920.
31 Sax L, Razak A, Shetty K, et al. Readability of online patient education materials for parents after a failed newborn hearing screen[J]. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 2019, 125: 168-174.
32 Maramba I, Chatterjee A, Newman C. Methods of usability testing in the development of eHealth applications: a scoping review[J]. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 2019, 126: 95-104.
33 Kelly L, Jenkinson C, Ziebland S. Measuring the effects of online health information for patients: item generation for an e-health impact questionnaire[J]. Patient Education and Counseling, 2013, 93(3): 433-438.
34 Tao D H, LeRouge C M, Deckard G, et al. Consumer perspectives on quality attributes in evaluating health websites[C]// Proceedings of the 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, 2012: 2675-2684.
35 Suzuki Y, Shirahada K, Kosaka M, et al. A new marketing methodology by integrating brain measurement, eye tracking, and questionnaire analysis[C]// Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Services Systems and Services Management. IEEE, 2012: 770-773.
36 Mahardika W, Wibirama S, Ferdiana R, et al. A novel user experience study of parallax scrolling using eye tracking and user experience questionnaire[J]. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, 2018, 8(4): 1226-1233.
37 Rayner K. Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search[J]. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2009, 62(8): 1457-1506.
38 Kules B, Xie B. Older adults searching for health information in MedlinePlus - an exploratory study of faceted online search interfaces[J]. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2011, 48(1): 1-10.
39 Harris P R, Sillence E, Briggs P. The effect of credibility-related design cues on responses to a web-based message about the breast cancer risks from alcohol: randomized controlled trial[J]. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2009, 11(3): e37.
40 Gurel Koybasi N A, Cagiltay K. Finding online health-related information: usability issues of health portals[M]// Quality of Life through Quality of Information. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2012, 180: 848-852.
41 Cho H, Powell D, Pichon A, et al. Eye-tracking retrospective think-aloud as a novel approach for a usability evaluation[J]. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 2019, 129: 366-373.
42 Schaarup C, Hartvigsen G, Larsen L B, et al. Assessing the potential use of eye-tracking triangulation for evaluating the usability of an online diabetes exercise system[J]. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 2015, 216: 84-88.
43 Inthiran A, Macredie R D. How do older adults view online health webpages? Preliminary results from eye tracking data[C]// Proceedings of the International Conference on Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Cham: Springer, 2018: 252-260.
44 Chang Y S. The moderator effect of working memory and emotion on the relationship between information overload and online health information quality judgment[C]// Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Human Information Interaction & Retrieval. New York: ACM Press, 2018: 345-347.
45 Kr?enbring J, Monzon Penza T, Gutmann J, et al. Accuracy and completeness of drug information in Wikipedia: a comparison with standard textbooks of pharmacology[J]. PLoS One, 2014, 9(9): e106930.
46 Candelario D M, Vazquez V, Jackson W, et al. Completeness, accuracy, and readability of Wikipedia as a reference for patient medication information[J]. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, 2017, 57(2): 197-200.
47 Phillips J, Lam C, Palmisano L. Analysis of the accuracy and readability of herbal supplement information on Wikipedia[J]. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, 2014, 54(4): 406-414.
48 Stinson J N, White M, Breakey V, et al. Perspectives on quality and content of information on the Internet for adolescents with cancer[J]. Pediatric Blood & Cancer, 2011, 57(1): 97-104.
49 Avery E J. The role of source and the factors audiences rely on in evaluating credibility of health information[J]. Public Relations Review, 2010, 36(1): 81-83.
50 Freeman K S, Spyridakis J H. Effect of contact information on the credibility of online health information[J]. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 2009, 52(2): 152-166.
51 Liao Q V, Fu W T. Age differences in credibility judgments of online health information[J]. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 2014, 21(1): 2.
52 Gao Q, Tian Y, Tu M Y. Exploring factors influencing Chinese user’s perceived credibility of health and safety information on Weibo[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015, 45: 21-31.
53 Skovrlj B, Silvestre J, Ibeh C, et al. Neurosurgery residency websites: a critical evaluation[J]. World Neurosurgery, 2015, 84(3): 727-733.
54 Scott K K, Errett N A. Content, accessibility, and dissemination of disaster information via social media during the 2016 Louisiana floods[J]. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 2018, 24(4): 370-379.
55 Lustria M L A. Can interactivity make a difference? Effects of interactivity on the comprehension of and attitudes toward online health content[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2007, 58(6): 766-776.
56 Kim H. Pharmaceutical companies as a source of health information: a pilot study of the effects of source, web site interactivity, and involvement[J]. Health Marketing Quarterly, 2011, 28(1): 57-85.
57 Tsai C H. The e-commerce model of health websites: an integration of web quality, perceived interactivity, and web outcomes[J]. Journal of Networks, 2011, 6(7): 1017-1024.
58 Drew T, Boettcher S E P, Wolfe J M. One visual search, many memory searches: an eye-tracking investigation of hybrid search[J]. Journal of Vision, 2017, 17(11): 5.
59 闫国利, 熊建萍, 臧传丽, 等. 阅读研究中的主要眼动指标评述[J]. 心理科学进展, 2013, 21(4): 589-605.
60 Holmqvist K, Nystr?m M, Andersson R, et al. Eye tracking: a comprehensive guide to methods and measures[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
61 Lorigo L, Haridasan M, Brynjarsdóttir H, et al. Eye tracking and online search: lessons learned and challenges ahead[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2008, 59(7): 1041-1052.
62 Wilson P. Second-hand knowledge: an inquiry into cognitive authority[M]. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1983.
63 Al-Mandhary A, Al-Zakwani I, Afifi M. Primary health care consumers’ acceptance, trust and gender preferences towards Omani doctors[J]. Oman Medical Journal, 2007, 22(3): 51-56.
64 Huebner J, Senf B, Micke O, et al. Online information on complementary and alternative medicine for cancer patients: evidence-based recommendations[J]. Onkologie, 2013, 36: 273-278.
65 Xiang J, Stanley S J. From online to offline: exploring the role of e-health consumption, patient involvement, and patient-centered communication on perceptions of health care quality[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2017, 70: 446-452.
66 Wu H, Lu N J. Online written consultation, telephone consultation and offline appointment: an examination of the channel effect in online health communities[J]. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 2017, 107: 107-119.
67 Habermas J. The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1, reason and the rationalization of society[M]. Boston: Beacon Press, 1984.
68 Muntinga T, Taylor G. Information-seeking strategies in medicine queries: a clinical eye-tracking study with gaze-cued retrospective think-aloud protocol[J]. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 2018, 34(6): 506-518.
69 Fiore A M, Jin H J, Kim J. For fun and profit: hedonic value from image interactivity and responses toward an online store[J]. Psychology & Marketing, 2005, 22(8): 669-694.
70 Eysenck M W, Keane M T. Cognitive psychology: a student’s handbook[M]. London: Psychology Press, 2013.
71 柯青, 丁松云, 秦琴. 健康信息可读性对用户认知负荷和信息加工绩效影响眼动实验研究[J]. 数据分析与知识发现, 2021, 5(2): 70-82.
72 Suárez-Perdomo A, Byrne S, Rodrigo M J. Assessing the ethical and content quality of online parenting resources[J]. Comunicar, 2018, 26(54): 19-28.